Free Will: All souls created equal?

[Nita]

My original post:
…
Imagine Joe-at-(time)A. He is confronted with two choices, R and S, one of which is good and the other bad. He makes his choice, and is now at (time)B. Now let’s say we can magically put Joe back at (time)A. (He is the same person he was at time A.) Surely he, being exactly the same person and in the same position, will make the same choice?

…

Seeing that laptop, I, being the sum of my nature and nurture, with my character, beliefs and desires, will certainly make decision X. I have no influence on my nature and nurture; nor on my character (a result of nature and nurture), beliefs (ditto) or desires (by definition passive). How then can I be held culpable for my actions?

Regarding the Joe paragraph:
I see two major flaws in your hypothetical example:

1. You’re making something that is impossible (to go back in time) a part of it.
2. You’re assuming Joe would make the same decision.

When you change the whole format/environment/scope etc. you change the whole realm of possibilities. And who’s to say what possibilities God might have allowed if he had created us in such a way that we could go back in time.

Regarding the laptop paragraph:
You will not “certainly” make decision X because of your nature and nurture. If you examine your life you’ll know that from personal experience. Take a sin you battle on a regular basis. Did you ever resist it - even for one minute (that’s a choice where you said “no”) only to cave in a minute later (another choice where you said “yes”)? Two different choices even tho there was no change in your nature or nurture in that minute of time. Next day you might say “no” and hold to it. Day after fail and say “yes” immediately, etc.

Nita

 

[katholicos]

Two different choices even tho there was no change in your nature or nurture in that minute of time. Next day you might say “no” and hold to it. Day after fail and say “yes” immediately, etc.

I know you’ve already ‘answered’ this, but - what is it about me that makes me say no and then yes? For my soul to be culpable, it has to be internal to my soul. And what is internal to my soul is surely created by God?

 

[john_doran]

Imagine Joe-at-(time)A. He is confronted with two choices, R and S, one of which is good and the other bad. He makes his choice, and is now at (time)B. Now let’s say we can magically put Joe back at (time)A. (He is the same person he was at time A.) Surely he, being exactly the same person and in the same position, will make the same choice?

no, he won’t…

this is, in fact precisely the definition of free choice: a choice is free if and only if there are at least two possible worlds that are identical up to the point of the choice, but which differ as to the choice that is made.

in other words, a choice is free only if nothing determines the choice but the choosing.

choices aren’t determined by personhood, or environmental conditions, or any other conjunction of sufficient conditions; if a choice is the result of such things, then it will be determined and not free.

 

[katholicos]

in other words, a choice is free only if nothing determines the choice but the choosing.

…And that is what doesn’t make sense to me. How so? Is the choosing not therefore just random?

 

[john_doran]

…And that is what doesn’t make sense to me. How so? Is the choosing not therefore just random?

no. how would it be random? it’s something we do; it’s something we do.

the problem with this thinking of yours is that you have identified the categories of “caused” and “uncaused” with “deternined” and “random”. in other words, the only reason you think of free choices as ranom is because you can apparently only think of events in a deterministic paradigm.

but there are at least these categories: caused, random, and freely chosen.

 

[katholicos]

but there are at least these categories: caused, random, and freely chosen.

Ok, so you’re saying that something which is “uncaused” is either random or freely chosen. What’s the difference between these two?

(I know I probably seem rather stupid here, but I really want to resolve this…!)

 

[MichaelLewis]

you can make the same argument about walking: Joe-at-A is at point P. Joe-at-A then does whatever it is that needs to be done to move to point Q. now Joe-at-A is going to become Joe-at-B - he is going to become the person that is Joe-at-point-Q. but who did the moving from P to Q? it can’t be Joe-at-A because, by definition, he was at point P; by the same token, it can’t be Joe-at-B, since he didn’t actually come into existence until B. so it seems that we can’t have a good account of walking (people just blink out of existence every moment and are replaced by brand new people that blink into existence a moment later).

you’re making some kind of flawed (Zeno-like) assumption about the actual (infinite?) quantization of points of time, perhaps in tandem with a flawed assumption about personhood - i.e. that Joe-at-B is as substantially a different person from Joe-at-A as I am.

but why should anyone believe either of those things? i mean, the person we’re blaming for making the wrong choice is the person who made that choice (just as we identify the person who moved from point P to Q as the person who took the step - that person, there).

because Joe-at-B is the same person as the person that made the bad choice. choices don’t create new persons (and destroy old ones) any more than they create entirely new quantum universes. unless, of course, you have a good argument as to why we should think they do…

well, that would seem about as plausible as your account of choice and personhood.

I confess, I do believe there must be discrete moments in time (if time isn’t itself just a reducible feature of our minds), but my case doesn’t rest upon that, it just makes it easier to talk about. If people begin life without being morally blameworthy, and subsequently become morally blameworthy there must be some point, even if time is infinitely rich, where they begin being morally blameworthy. I’m labeling that point “B”. If time is infinitely rich, then there is no point “just before” B, of course, but I can still speak of the set of properties Joe has UP TO BUT NOT INCLUDING the properties he has at time B. Until B, Joe is innocent and can not be rightly morally blamed for anything. That is a substantially different quality than being blameworthy, as Joe is at B and after B. I don’t deny here that Joe is the same person, perhaps he has some persistent “essence” that remains through time. But his essence isn’t responsible for his blameworthiness, for he had the same essence before and after he sinned, so that isn’t a relevant property of Joe for the purposes of this discussion. Joe wasn’t blameworthy before B, yet presumably it was who Joe was before B that caused him to transition to B in the way that he did. If that is not the case, then either something else caused Joe to transition to B or Joe at or after B caused himself to transition to B. I am not suggesting that Joe isn’t the same person throughout, only that the same person can transition from innocence to guilt and that such a person is not blameworthy for anything while innocent, and once blameworthy is not blameworthy FOR whatever caused him to become blameworthy—specifically he is not morally culpable for any choice that he made while still innocent. This is inconsistent with the proposition that we are morally blameworthy (only) for those events which we have control over, isn’t it?

Nita:
When I say “blameworthy” I mean worthy of condemnation (to some perhaps very small degree), not merely able to tell right from wrong.

 

[john_doran]

Ok, so you’re saying that something which is “uncaused” is either random or freely chosen. What’s the difference between these two?

one is something that just occurs, and the other is something that we choose, that we do.

if i choose to stay home and read rather than go to the movies with a friend, my staying home to read is something that happens because i chose to do it - i deliberated, considered the goods at stake, and then chose one of them; there’s nothing even remotely random about my staying home.

i’m not sure how to be more clear…

 

[MichaelLewis]

one is something that just occurs, and the other is something that we choose, that we do.

if i choose to stay home and read rather than go to the movies with a friend, my staying home to read is something that happens because i chose to do it - i deliberated, considered the goods at stake, and then chose one of them; there’s nothing even remotely random about my staying home.

i’m not sure how to be more clear…

But the “I” that chooses to remain home, to the extent to which it is free, is an “I” apart from your personal history or inherent disposition. This raises the question WHY that “I” choose to stay home rather than go to the movies. It seems that all potential tie-breaking motivations are disqualified, if you are to be free. As I’ve argued before, you might as well replace the “I” with a random decision generator—I don’t see how anyone would ever know the difference. Since we had that free will debate here a couple of years ago I’ve taken a seminar on free will, and I still don’t understand what you libertarians are talking about!

 

[john_doran]

I confess, I do believe there must be discrete moments in time (if time isn’t itself just a reducible feature of our minds), but my case doesn’t rest upon that, it just makes it easier to talk about. If people begin life without being morally blameworthy, and subsequently become morally blameworthy there must be some point, even if time is infinitely rich, where they begin being morally blameworthy. I’m labeling that point “B”. If time is infinitely rich, then there is no point “just before” B, of course, but I can still speak of the set of properties Joe has UP TO BUT NOT INCLUDING the properties he has at time B. Until B, Joe is innocent and can not be rightly morally blamed for anything. That is a substantially different quality than being blameworthy, as Joe is at B and after B. I don’t deny here that Joe is the same person, perhaps he has some persistent “essence” that remains through time. But his essence isn’t responsible for his blameworthiness, for he had the same essence before and after he sinned, so that isn’t a relevant property of Joe for the purposes of this discussion. Joe wasn’t blameworthy before B, yet presumably it was who Joe was before B that caused him to transition to B in the way that he did. If that is not the case, then either something else caused Joe to transition to B or Joe at or after B caused himself to transition to B.

Joe “causes” himself to be blameworthy by making a blameworthy choice; his choosing is responsible for his blameworthiness. to co-opt your language, ***Joe ***has the property of blameworthiness.

MichaelLewis:

I am not suggesting that Joe isn’t the same person throughout, only that the same person can transition from innocence to guilt and that such a person is not blameworthy for anything while innocent, and once blameworthy is not blameworthy FOR whatever caused him to become blameworthy—specifically he is not morally culpable for any choice that he made while still innocent.

this is the same thing that you said before, and is no different than zeno’s paradox that entails that we can’t ever take a step…

Joe is morally culpable for any blameworthy choice he makes; one’s pre- (or peri-)choice innocence has got absolutely nothing to do with the moral rectifiability of the choice one makes any more than one’s pre- (or peri-)choice guilt can make one’s good acts bad.

when Joe makes a blameworthy choice at time t, joe becomes blameworthy. period.

MichaelLewis:

This is inconsistent with the proposition that we are morally blameworthy (only) for those events which we have control over, isn’t it?

we always have control over our free choices.

 

[john_doran]

But the “I” that chooses to remain home, to the extent to which it is free, is an “I” apart from your personal history or inherent disposition.

no, it’s not. at all. there is only one “I” in me, and it is constituted by my history and my inherent disposition. and that I makes the free choice to stay home and read (even, say, if i really want to go to a movie, i may realize that i need to pass my history test tomorrow).

once i make that choice, “I” will become sightly different by virtue of that choice.

the only reason you are making these bizarre claims about personhood and choice is because you are assuming that having historical and biochemical components to one’s personality is incompatible with that person’s making free choices. of course, that is simply assuming what needs to be proven: namely, that persons can’t make free choices.

MichaelLewis:

This raises the question WHY that “I” choose to stay home rather than go to the movies. It seems that all potential tie-breaking motivations are disqualified, if you are to be free. As I’ve argued before, you might as well replace the “I” with a random decision generator—I don’t see how anyone would ever know the difference. Since we had that free will debate here a couple of years ago I’ve taken a seminar on free will, and I still

don’t understand what you libertarians are talking about!
fair enough. and i still don’t understand what you don’t understand…

 

[Nita]

I know you’ve already ‘answered’ this, but - what is it about me that makes me say no and then yes? For my soul to be culpable, it has to be internal to my soul. And what is internal to my soul is surely created by God?

What makes it culpable is that you really do have a choice. That freedom to choose is what is internal, in your soul, and created by God.

God created our will “free” - that is, He leaves us free to decide, in regards to an action, whether we will do it or not. (I think we’ve stated before that without free choice, there is no culpability.)

As to what it is that makes you say no at one moment and yes at the next, I don’t really know. We are born with weakened wills, due to original sin. I spoke about how we need to exercise our will correctly to develop “spiritual muscle”. God provides grace to help us.

You might compare the first no (to temptation) to a beginning exercise in physical therapy for an invalid. They can do it for a short while, but then weaken. But if they are faithful to continue to exercise properly, the muscles will strengthen and they’ll be able to move properly for longer and longer periods. Of course the spiritual is not as simple as the physical. There’s no single answer that will explain the differences in choices - other than to say they are a result of free will. As soon as you try to blame poverty and abuse for a poor choice by someone in those circumstances, you’ll read about someone else who was poorer and more abused that never took that route.

You’re digging (I’m a “digger” too) at a level where it’s difficult to phrase your question in a way people can grasp exactly what it is you’re after; and also where it’s difficult for us to respond in a way that we’re sure you, or someone else, understands exactly what we’re trying to say!

I go to God when I have questions I can’t find an answer to; or where the given answers still don’t make sense to me. I started in my 20’s doing this and after 40 years it’s natural for me to talk to Our Lord about it. I tell Him I don’t understand; ask Him what it means; tell Him if it’s important for me to know and understand He’s going to have to show me; etc. He has always answered. The rarities were when He answered almost immediately and when He answered by what you might call inspiration. Usually it took a longer period of time - sometimes years. When the answer came it might be in something I was reading, or something someone else said, etc. He has always answered. To the point that I can say I no longer have any burning questions that I’m waiting for Him to answer. Of course, one might pop up tomorrow.

God bless,
Nita

 

[lavalamp]

katholicos:

I think the best way to think about the problem of free will is to see it as a fundamental feature of human nature. God created you with a free will, the ability to make choices. Remember, everything else in the universe except humans and angels doesn’t have free will and only acts under the influence or cause of some other thing (this is very close to a proof for God’s existence, the uncaused-cause), thus we are very used to seeing and finding causes for events, so it isn’t surprising that it is hard to figure out how free will works: surely there must be something that actually causes us to choose. But no.

Remember we are created in the image of God, who is all-powerful and all-knowing. God is, in a sense, pure will. We, by God’s gift also have a free will (as opposed to a rock with no will), but are hampered in exercising it by the effects of Sin.

In effect, to fully understand how free will and choices work without reasoning about causes and effects is to understand God, which is, needless to say very hard!

So, although we all wish for some way to bind ourselves to always do good, or to better understand why we are not perfect, we need to be humble and admit our limited nature and trust that God didn’t somehow mess up when he created us. This is why the virtues of Faith and Hope are so important. Do not despair! Even St. Paul struggled with this question:“For the good which I desire, I don’t do; but the evil which I don’t desire, that I practice” Rom 7:19

Read the rest of Rom 7 to see the hope that we have in Christ.

I would really encourage you, if you really want to go deeper, to find a commentary on St. Thomas Aquinas, and see what the Angelic Doctor has to say. This is not for the faint of heart.

Good Luck

 

[Screwtape777]

Hey dude. I specifically joined forums.catholic-questions.org so I could talk to you. I’m responding to your post “Free Will: All souls created equal?” I sincerely hope this message finds you some way because you seemed to have been struggling with EXACTLY the same thing I was for so long and I’m pretty sure God gave me the answer, but only after I decided to have faith in him anyways. I was trying to find an answer to basically the same question so I googled something similar and your post popped up. I got frustrated because NOBODY seemed to even get our question but I was relieved that someone out there had the same concern as me. I’ve been struggling with this for years and it had intensified recently. Once I prayed to have faith in God even if I didn’t have the answer to put me at ease, I got the answer! So here goes…

The Problem or Question basically is what is “It” that moves us and if God gave us all free will why don’t we all act the same under the same conditions even if we have the same upbringings, etc. In short, what makes our souls “different” and if God made us “different” then that would set us on a predestined course and how the heck does that mesh with free will.

First of all…Liberty (freedom) does not require that our free will choice is caused by itself. Our free will choice is an effect that was made necessary by a cause (something outside of ourselves)…follow me…

God is the first cause…then everything after him is effect/cause/effect/cause/effect…but don’t confuse this with causality. Each “effect” is freely chosen by us. Each “effect” is our choice. Just because we are forced to make a choice by a cause (something that happened to us)…we are still free to react to it in any way we choose…keep following…

now, WHY do different people react in different ways if God created each soul equal? Traducianism. Let me explain…

Genesis 2:2-3 seems to indicate that God finished his creative works. He breathed life into Adam and Adam became a living soul. Scripture nowhere reads that God did this again. Even though we know Adam had sons (Cain&Abel) they were then made in Adam’s likeness. In short, Adam’s sons are living souls without God having “breathed life into them”.

Traducianism is the theory that an individuals soul is derived from the souls of his/her parents, allowed by God’s design of course. So our soulish potentialities and nature are passed down the the FREE WILL CHOICES of our parents. We inherit some of the qualities that they have produced by how they lived their lives.

Have you ever heard of how we pay for “the sins of the father?” The phrase seems to hold some meaning. In scripture see Deuteronomy 24:16, Exodus 34:7, numbers 14:18, Ezekiel 18:19-20. There are some other references too but I don’t know them all by heart.

Even though we may be inclined to act a certain way due to our soulish nature, we are still held responsible by our actions because God has given us the power to break the chain of sinful events and continue with the good ones. FREE WILL. So we are literally “moved” by our own will, as we are a seperate agent created by God with the ability to do so. And even though we inherit some things upon being conceived, we are not destined or fated or caused to make the same decisions as our ancestors.

In conclusion, there is absolute free will and individuality which creates these differences in how souls “will” without contradiction of God’s amazing plan of creation. No chance of randomness or predestination exists in our choice of accepting or reject Jesus Christ as our Lord and Savior.